By pH -
December 18th 2009 @ 2:03am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...Australia should bid with Indonesia for 2022
The current FFA bid is flawed. Conspiracy theorists would say purposely so, so that the FFA can financially damage the AFL and NRL, seeing as it can’t do it through attendances, TV rights, and sponsorships.
But maybe this problem is just a side-effect the FFA wouldn’t be too fussed about due to Australia being stretched to its limit to host the world’s biggest sporting show.
A better bid would’ve been – and maybe still could be – to bid for 2022 jointly with Indonesia.
Joint bids are fine with world soccer. Ireland and Scotland bid (unsuccessfully) for UEFA 2008, Norway and Sweden bid for UEFA 2016, and Korea and Japan won the World Cup itself.
Interesting that not even the world’s second largest economy, Japan, felt up to hosting it alone.
The benefits of an Australia-Indonesia bid are significant:
* more than halving of costs
* gives the bid a block Asia vote, so more likely to beat USA
* meets Lowy’s main pitch to FIFA that the Australian bid would “make Asia a football territory”
* leaves more room for AFL and NRL to play their seasons with less – unfair – disruption
* a united country on the bid, instead of 100,000s of footy and league fans with angry, or at least mixed, feelings
* leaves a lasting legacy of improved goodwill, security cooperation, understanding and trade relations with our near and populous neighbour
* raises Australia’s standing in Asia for cooperating with Indonesia and benefits our long term trade
* reduces the risks of the massive financial blow-outs that will occur if airfares are 5 to 10 times today’s cost – as is quite likely, given peak oil situation
An alternative is an ANZ bid. The FFA is really an ANZ organisation – or is the Phoenix just a token presence?
This would solve the stadia problems to some extent and spread costs, but less effectively than a joint bid with Indonesia.
A joint bid deserves serious consideration.
Get Australia's best Football opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(32)
albe said | December 18th 2009 @ 6:45am | Report comment
yeah some good points there… i love the idea of bidding with Indonesia, but its too far down the road now to change things that significantly. Which is a shame.
But our chairman is brave and ambitious enough for bid for it solo, so credit to him for that.
If we miss out on 2022, i think the Australia-Indonesia idea should have serious consideration for 2026. Keeping in mind that if the Americas get the ‘22 Cup, Asia would be pretty much guaranteed for the next one. Though IMO Asia should get 2022, as Europe will get 2018 and the Americas are hosting in 2014 (Brasil).
Chuq said | December 18th 2009 @ 7:06am | Report comment
Worst. Idea. Ever.
FIFA were not happy with Korea/Japan’s co-hosting because of many things, difference in language and currency being two of them. Do you really think two cultures as vastly different as Australia and Indonesia would work?
Not to mention travel would be enough of a burden with just Australia’s size, without another country bring included.
The effects on the AFL/NRL have been exaggerated by those organisations for their own benefit.
sheek said | December 18th 2009 @ 8:01am | Report comment
Bugger Indonesia!!!
JamesB said | December 18th 2009 @ 8:15am | Report comment
Joint bids aren’t generally viewed favourably. As one writer pointed out, its too late in the process now to change. Australia hosted the Olympics alone, so is more than capable of hosting the FIFA world Cup. If anything they should co-host with NZ. Between them they would have hosted the Olympics and three Rugby World Cups. That is quite a powerful statement.
Ben said | December 18th 2009 @ 8:22am | Report comment
Um, no
Mxjosh said | December 18th 2009 @ 8:36am | Report comment
It wouldnt work
Griffo said | December 18th 2009 @ 10:34am | Report comment
Ditto all the above (18 December 2009 11:40)
AndrewM said | December 18th 2009 @ 11:06am | Report comment
what a stupid article..
If we were to bid with Indonesia we would fail. They have issues with dodgy government, and terrorist issues.
Are you insane? Stop crying over a loss of a few weeks of 1 season in 10 years time.. the NRL is the least affected it can play out of its suburban grounds.. No problems there its not like they ever fill ANZ or SFS.. Fans prefer the suburban grounds because when you get 15-20k there the atmoshere is decent.
AFL obviously draws bigger crowds, so losing the MCG will hurt them more, however they should use it as an exercise to take the game into the community.. It’s only a few weeks, and they will get compensated anyways.
Chuq said | December 18th 2009 @ 9:11pm | Report comment
From the authors profile:
“pH loves: AFL, Rugby, Cricket”
That should explain why this suggestion is poorly thought out. It’s all about the other codes.
AndyRoo said | December 18th 2009 @ 9:30pm | Report comment
to quote this author from a previous thread
pH said | December 15th 2009 @ 8:31pm (3 days ago) | Report comment
By 2022 peak oil will have well and truly hit – aviation fuel and air tickets could be 10-fold current cost. There is a risk of only the rich being able to come. We pay $5billion of taxpayers money (or more – see recent press) and half fill many games with only Aussies. A financial nightmare.
The world in 2022 would be better to go to USA.
Best is to change bid to joint Australia-Indonesia bid. This would meet Lowy’s main pitch to FIFA to take the game to Asia. It would half costs or more – as wouldn’t have to build extra stadia so much. It would allow some justice to the AFL and NRL so they won’t be ordered out of their stadia by government decree at behest of their competitor the FFA and create such a sour taste re the WC for vast numbers of AFL and NRL fans and financial hardship, job losses and club failures for AFL and NRL – unless government comes up with another half billion compensation.
Alternative bid would be ANZ bid – seeing as A-League and FFA really are both ANZ bodies – why was NZ left out – in order to purposely not have enough stadia so AFL and NRL could be hacked???
But ANZ bid would still have trouble from peak oil and vastly higher air fares than we enjoy today
his agenda is pretty much no World Cup for OZ…half full world cup stadiums apparently….. one minute oil prices would derail an OZ only bid then next suggest it’s a joint bid with indonesia….. that will save his air travel dilema
I am just shocked more AFL fans didn’t come to give him the thumbs up.
Turner said | December 19th 2009 @ 9:28am | Report comment
Is football broadly popular there or are we just assuming it is? I have never heard anything about them.
pH said | December 19th 2009 @ 11:16am | Report comment
OK you critics have a point – AFL, Rugby and Cricket are my favourite games and I have got involved in this World Cup debate because I find the current FFA bid grossly unfair (and maybe deliberately so) to the AFL and NRL and the AFL in particular because of its dependence on large crowds and club memberships (as distinct from the FFA and A-League who get bailed out by billionaires and taxpayers all the time).
But look in the mirror – the disregard that soccer fans have for the impact on other codes of this current World Cup bid reflects your own biases too.
Even though I wouldn’t watch much soccer, I really am keen on the World Cup because of the Socceroos – amazing what patriotism does for one’s interest. Also the standard in WC’s is very high. But then I have very mixed feelings about the current bid for reasons above, I do not want to see my favourite sport, AFL, financially crippled by this bid. I think the FFA is playing a very clever game with people’s patriotism and sporting desire to see the WC here but at the same time get an unfair taxpayer leg up over its rivals by decimating a season of their competition, knowing that that will have ripple effects on other seasons and financially take all the wind out of their competitors’ sails. After all we’re talking billion dollar businesses which depend on large cash flows – like any large business does.
The other points are valid – read up on Peak Oil yourselves. Peak Oil is not factored in to any future costings of anything, but it should be, especially something reliant on cheap long haul airfares as the WC bid. Speak to oil exploration engineers – they acknowledge the reality of it.
If we don’t get the international visitors then we have to reduce staging costs – that is where I got the idea of a joint bid. If we don’t have to spend billions on stadium upgrades by need for less building then the WC bid becomes less risky even with a peak oil scenario.
This century has far more challenges than sporting turf wars. Climate change, overpopulation, energy crises, nuclear proliferation, pollution, soil loss, refugee flows etc. Australia’s future will be dependent on stability and working alliance at many levels with Indonesia. Spending taxpayer money on the WC for ends beyond the immediate makes sense for our nation.
Indonesia can steal Lowy’s pitch that an Australian WC is “for Asia”, for goodness sakes Indonesia has more claim on being Asian than we do! A split Asia vote will help the USA who by 2022 will be nearly 30 years without a WC.
My thoughts re an ANZ bid are it would keep the Aussie nature of the bid mostly intact but reduce stadium costs, compensation and disruption to other codes and be fair to Phoenix and All-White fans. But with peak oil the costs from Europe to NZ are likely to be even greater.
That is what got me thinking laterally. I am against the bid in its current form, I am not against the World Cup coming to Australia per se.
Finally – do something that’ll take you 10 seconds – google “peak oil” + future + “air travel”.
Crazy Dave said | December 19th 2009 @ 10:52pm | Report comment
Nup, sorry, not gonna work…. Read your first comment, read all the responses, read your 2nd comment…. still disagree with you…
Australia can host the WC by itself… we do not need to co-host with any other nation…. I found it ridiculous years ago, when we co-hosted the Cricket WC with NZ… I think that was just to give NZ a part of the action…. we couldn’t host this WC with them as we are in different areas now (Asia and Oceania).
Australia won’t have a problem beating America to win the WC. We have a reputation for successfully putting on World-Class sporting events. We have a man on our bid team, who was involved with both the (successful) German and South African bids… and America have hosted the WC before, Australia hasn’t, and the current FIFA Board want to take the game to all corners of the world….
As to the NRL and the AFL… they are being wusses and wimps (and I am a huge NRL fan)… Australia hosting the WC would give them more exposure than they will lose by being shut down for the duration…. and they can always take their games to other cities or smaller communities… Forget the money side for once, and look at what the poor country cousins would think of having a 1st class match (their heroes who they otherwise only see on TV) coming to play a match at their local ground….
pH said | December 20th 2009 @ 11:51am | Report comment
Crazy Dave – the money side for AFL and NRL is crippling – unless huge compensation. Agree that playing on through the WC would give these codes good international exposure – and that should happen – but WC claims on venues for training and playing will make it hard to play-on (unless more stadia found). Also FIFA may just say – shut them down or else, then FFA tells Govt to pass law to shut down AFL and NRL if they won’t voluntarily sacrifice themselves. Hardly democratic or fair. And the very fact these debates are going on in the blogs proves the point that the current bid is divisive and a sizeable minority of sports fans in this country are going to be unhappy.
Nobody seems to want to look at Peak Oil. Denial is stronger the more scary the prospect.
AndyRoo said | December 20th 2009 @ 12:48pm | Report comment
How is the money side cripling pH, explain yourself?
They can still have a full 24 round competition plus finals playing out of their regular venues if they are willing to take a break for 4 weeks and play a couple of split rounds.
Theirs no huge financial loss, you just don’t want too see another sport get a leg up.
As to Peak Oil that has been thrown around for over 50 years now and assumes technology stays still. Already we can produce oil organicaly, if the price of extraction goes up then that will become a viable alternatie.
pH said | December 21st 2009 @ 10:03am | Report comment
Thanks AndyRoo – some debate about the message rather than just shooting me…
I don’t know the ins and outs of AFL finances, but the rationale for this claim is based on media and blog reports and analogies to business. OK that may be a beat up, but sounds like it is not, presumably at present there are serious negotiations going on behind closed doors as the AFL lobbies government and has to show its case for severe financial damage under the current WC bid.
An AFL season is one of this country’s biggest businesses and employs around 20,000 people and turns over a few $billion. The economics of it rely on TV rights, sponsorships, large crowds and very large club memberships. The loss of several rounds means the loss of several $100millions. The keeping of full fixtures but move to comparitively tiny stadia and regional grounds means huge losses in crowd and membership shortfalls and sponsors from stadia signage. There is a momentum that needs maintaining with club memberships in any sport – people are more likely to renew than re-sign after a lapse, so losses in membership can spread across a few seasons. The same dynamic applies to breaks in regular sponsorships. Leverage in TV rights negotiations is undermined if season has a break – or starts too early out of normal ratings and footy season period.
The clash with cricket is complicating to many who follow both games and to ground availability (SCG, Adelaide Oval by then, MCG, Gabba), and to sponsors and perhaps sports broadcasting contracts.
The best option for the AFL would be to run a normal season and wear the fair competition of the WC in this country. Demetriou seems to have always said as much. It was the NRL that protested first earlier this year, the AFL said they’d work with the FFA and govt – reports are that was because Buckley assured Demetriou of the AFL only having to give over MCG and could retain Etihad in Melbourne (not that it is necessarily the FFA’s lawful position to dictate to a competitor business what it can or can’t do with its contractual agreements especially on a private stadium). Demetriou only went public about things after the FFA turned around on this negotiated position.
As to Peak Oil. The theory has been around for half a century because Hubbert predicted it correctly in terms of oil supply from USA where the peak came and passed and America became a net oil importer. Hubbert then predicted the same for every world oil field until all would be in decline and each year from then on civilization would have less oil to power itself. That has now happened to nearly all the non-OPEC production – North Sea, Mexico, Russia as of about now, Indonesia etc. As soon as Saudi, the gulf states and Iraq hit their peak its downhill from there. Evidence mounts that they have peaked, they certainly couldn’t increase production much despite the price hikes. Iraq will buy a couple more years of time given its fields have underproduced due to war.
The main industry to be first impacted will be aviation. To quote from a chap called Tom Whipple (in Energy Bulletin http://www.energybulletin.net/node/43559 ):
“Ten or 15 years from now, air travel is likely to be significantly reduced; will be patronized by business travelers or the very wealthy; and will be limited to trans-oceanic or long-distance flights between major population centers.”
Sounds like around 2022.
Now you make the point that we’ll find an alternative. Those are hydrogen and algae. But neither are proven to either work in aircraft, or to be producible on a commercial scale that 10,000s of aircraft flying around every moment burning huge quantities of fuel will need – at least at a price affordable to your average tourist or sports fan. Maybe we’ll be lucky with technology, but my point is the govt and the only pricing done on the WC bid (at FFA’s commissioning) have not factored this in at all – somebody tell me if they have.
That makes the case for cutting costs. A joint bid cuts costs dramatically. Then there are the other benefits in cooperation with Indonesia – if Lowy is right and we’re a part of Asia – then this is exactly what we should be doing. Crazy Dave – please explain how you can be so sure we will beat the USA for the 2022 WC? They will argue on the size of their economy, on the proximity to Europe and Latin America, on maybe the distance to travel to Australia in a post peak oil world, on the fact all their 1,000s of players in youth and MLS will be too young by 2022 to remember the 1994 WC. Meanwhile we and Indonesia will be splitting the Asian bloc vote.
My proposal in the above article was a thought that came up as I looked at all these factors.
So maybe we still get the 2022 WC, we build white elephant regional stadia, we cause bitterness between supporters of the other football codes, we don’t get the fans because of the air prices, there is a fallout politically over cost blow-outs, climate change continues to hit, peak oil devastates our economy built as it is on trucking, mining, agriculture and tourism, refugees flood in via Indonesia – who we are no better at relating to or understanding….
For several reasons I thought the idea was worth floating, thanks at least AndyRoo for debating the ideas.
AndyRoo said | December 21st 2009 @ 11:44am | Report comment
“The loss of several rounds means the loss of several $100millions. The keeping of full fixtures but move to comparitively tiny stadia and regional grounds means huge losses in crowd and membership shortfalls and sponsors from stadia signage.”
They only lose the above if they decide to play on during the world cup, something I think their major revenue source (TV companies) will disagree with. TV wouldn’t want the AFL to go head on against the World Cup anyway. In fact it’s likely more attractive for the TV companies to start earlier because they get the benefit of Friday Night football ratings earlier in the financial year and ratings season (better than losing the first two months to your competitors US sitcom).
The only problem with moving games earlier or later in the year is the clash with cricket but the need for these venues by cricket is very small and much easier to amend the schedule as there will be no clash with the core of crickets calender.
Most of the world cup venues will only be out of action for 6 weeks so if the AFL keep Etihad (which I am sure they will) then the only stadium they are losing without massive improvements in return is the MCG. They have already agreed with losing the MCG for up to 8 weeks so I don’t see where there is still an issue?
Etihad is not a great venue for Football (Soccer) so this wrangling will likely lead to the best outcome for both codes…. A bigger rectangular stadium which unfortunately couldn’t be built prior to this because of the anti competition clause in the Docklands deal.
Back to peak oil, not since swine flu has their been such a beat up. Already there is the trend to bigger aircraft. The new super jets use more fuel but much less per passenger and that will be refined further. They will be massive busses and all the talk of gyms and bars in the middle wont eventuate.
Also even if the worst case scenario eventuates don’t you see this would be disaterous for Australia’s current tourism industry? If people are going to have to pay say 5k to fly to Australia you are going to need bigger events than Koala hugging to get them to come. The World Cup is such an event. It’s something fans will shell out a premium to attend and because of the numbers all the airline companies would put their airbuses on the route for that period. It would be even more important to get the World Cup if your predictions are true.
Edit: PH, Jesse Fink already did an article on a joint bid with Indonesia so he took the wind out of your sails a bit as to why not many comments.
pH said | December 22nd 2009 @ 11:02am | Report comment
Peak Oil “a beat up”?? See these leading oil industry execs and engineers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd7QGbNKxoQ
Michael C said | December 22nd 2009 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
how can ‘peak oil’ be a beat up…..when it’s a finite natural resource and we’ve already seen ‘peak oil’ occur locally ….. it don’t grow on trees,
and any ‘fuel’ that does grow on trees is only going to have to contend with population growth, the need for more food cultivation in competition with ‘bio fuel’ cultivation – - whilst contending with increased costs due peak oil, whilst contending with (man made or otherwise) climate change as has been exhibited.
And we’ve got people glibly projecting 13 years forward on a tourism dependant hosting of a FIFA WC in far flung Australia…….sheesh….if that’s the best strategy our Govt has……then, perhaps ‘peak oil’ IS a beat up and scientists have found a way to breed crude oil in captivity!!!
AndyRoo said | December 22nd 2009 @ 2:15pm | Report comment
Michael C….. a bit surprised your buying into the peak oil factor.
Do you think the AFL has been negligent in setting up 2 interstate AFL teams then?
If you buy into that alarmist garbage then I don’t know why you bother about a World Cup bid in 2022.
We will need all the economic activity we can get.
Stadiums for all!
Crazy Dave said | December 21st 2009 @ 4:09pm | Report comment
I am confident we will beat America for the 2022 WC because America are currently out of favour with International sporting organisations… re : the Americans not getting the rights to host the Summer Olympics in Chicago… instead losing it to some place that I can’t even remember the name of…
jimbo said | December 21st 2009 @ 11:57am | Report comment
Report just in from Johannesburg and the South African Sunday Times’ Peter Godwin:
FIFA WORLD CUP IN SOUTH AFRICA CANCELLED
Following discussions between FIFA and the South African Australian Football League SA-AFL it has been agreed by Sepp Blatter, the Head of FIFA that the FIFA football World Cup of 2010 in South Africa will be cancelled to avoid inconveniencing the South African AFL season.
Frank Costa the president of SA-AFL said that world football’s governing body FIFA would have claimed exclusive access to South Africa’s biggest stadiums, it would have been impossible to schedule a viable South African AFL season.
Even though the World Cup only lasts for four-and-a-half weeks in June-July, Frank Costa said the South African AFL had learned that the stadiums could be decommissioned for four months while its most important venues were refitted for “soccer”.
“The World Cup starts … in June and there’s four or five weeks of securitising it, putting signage up,” Frank Costa said.
“They would commence work in late March or early April and that would probably mean we’d just have to cancel the season because that would mean those foreigners would have the AFL Parks for 16 weeks.”
“But we couldn’t do it, we’d have to cancel the season.”
“You can’t just move the AFL season to January, it’s out of the ratings period, you’ve got cricket and Rugby, it’s hot, it just won’t work.
Frank Costa said the South African AFL had a history of working constructively alongside other major sporting events in South Africa, such as the Rugby World Cup and the Cricket World Cup, but “ … no way we’ll change for those “Soccer Hooligans” and most of them are foreigners or black anyway”.
“Cancelling a South African AFL season is a disaster, it affects revenue – we’ve got broadcast agreements, we’ve got agreements with members, we’ve got agreements with corporate partners,” said the South African AFL chief.
“The cost is a monumental cost and I’m talking hundreds of millions of rands compensation from the South African government.”
” … It does put South African AFL clubs at risk, it would mean a lot of jobs at risk, and a huge increase in vandalism and crime.”
“It would mean the end of our South African democracy and our way of life.” concluded Mr Costa.
pH said | December 21st 2009 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
OK Jimbo – so more lateral thinking as an analogy to presumably point out the absurdity of my post. However analogies don’t always get well matched by another analogy.
To take you literally – AFL South Africa with 20,000 players in a country three times the size of Australia, compared with the AFL with 700,000 participants and around 10 times that through the turnstyles and a $3.4billion annual industry to the Australian economy – just don’t compare. Quite obviously.
As to the reality/justifiable nature of the AFL’s concerns – read http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/14/2770679.htm?site=sport§ion=football
The AFL wrote to the FFA 2 weeks before Demetriou went public and after the FFA’s reply to the AFL failed to answer the vital questions. Vital questions still needing answers.
jimbo said | December 21st 2009 @ 3:51pm | Report comment
No,
I thought it was a great idea coming from a Crows’ supporter.
pH said | December 22nd 2009 @ 8:38am | Report comment
That World Cups don’t necessarily bring any long term economic benefit but risk a lot of debt – http://www.sportsjournalists.co.uk/blog/?p=2236
jimbo said | December 22nd 2009 @ 9:46am | Report comment
Then why do so many countries bid for the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup – they aren’t all as uneducated as Adolf Demetriou.
pH said | December 22nd 2009 @ 9:51am | Report comment
bread & circuses – they’ve always been politically popular – the circuses became more expensive as the Roman empire declined into bankruptcy.
Gibbo said | December 23rd 2009 @ 1:53pm | Report comment
and bread has so many carbs…
lose & lose
pH said | December 22nd 2009 @ 9:43am | Report comment
AndyRoo – I think you gloss over the clash with cricket somewhat. Your point about Peak Oil and effects on tourism and any event that can bring them down here is a good one. The question will still remain however will sufficient come to be meaningful in terms of recouping costs of stadia, compensation to other codes, security and city disruption etc.
As to joint bids – they’re all over the place. Indonesia jointly held the 2007 AFC Cup with Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam. Belgium and The Netherlands are jointly bidding for 2018 & 2022, as are Spain & Portugal.
As to Indonesia – they have the makings of a good bid it seems. 8 stadia over 40k (most 60k to 88k) with 4 stadia (50 to 60k) under construction and 3 more boutique 40k stadia on the drawing board. They could offer the WC not only as an Asian country for an Asian century but also from a country with a large Islamic popluation as a use of sport for global harmony and cohesion etc.
Those latter aspects a joint bid with Australia could link into. A joint bid could offer Indonesia some cost savings, and most importantly – the certainty of beating the USA.
Finally (and thanks for the tip Editor – but given that Jesse Fink’s story was back in October maybe this story needs a reprise?) someone who knows a lot more about Association Football than I, Jesse Fink, had an article promoting the merits of a joint Aust-Indon bid – http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/10/09/time-for-australia-and-indonesia-to-unite/ Similar rationale to half of my reasons, to which you can add a soothing of the cross-code bitterness that has erupted since Jesse’s bid plus the concerns about costs blow-out in a post peak-oil world.
jimbo said | December 22nd 2009 @ 9:47am | Report comment
Anywhere – as long as it isn’t Melbourne.
Gibbo said | December 23rd 2009 @ 1:55pm | Report comment
“also from a country with a large Islamic popluation as a use of sport for global harmony and cohesion etc”
olympics did the trick for a war-hungry germany in 1936…
wait a minute…!!
Midfielder said | December 23rd 2009 @ 2:01pm | Report comment
Off to Byron soon for the Hol’s … have a happy season Football folk… be back next year…
I got my present early see link and go to the last few post I posted.. all the best guys… http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/07/22/will-the-mariners-centre-of-excellence-work/